Skip to main content

Table 2 Decreases in the numbers of near native structures for all types of protein complexes

From: IFACEwat: the interfacial water-implemented re-ranking algorithm to improve the discrimination of near native structures for protein rigid docking

# Wi = 0 Number of hits found (in %)a and level of hit decrease
   A AB E O
0 (W 1 ,W 2 ,W 3 ,W 4 ) 100 100 100 100
1 (0,W2,W3,W4) ↓↓↓↓ (41.5) ↓↓ (87.5) ↓↓ (73.8) ↓↓ (74.4)
2 (W1,0,W3,W4) - ↓↓ (75.0) ↓ (97.1) ↓ (98.2)
3 (W1,W2,0,W4) - - ↓ (97.0) ↓ (98.0)
4 (W1,W2,W3,0) ↓↓↓↓ (17.1) ↓↓↓ (37.5) ↓↓ (78.0) ↓↓ (90.0)
5 (W1,0,0,W4)b - ↓↓ (87.5) ↓ (97.0) ↓ (97.7)
6 (0,W2,W3,0) ↓↓↓↓↓ (4.87) ↓↓↓ (50.0) ↓↓↓↓ (30.0) ↓↓↓↓ (18.7)
7 (0,0,0,W4) ↓↓↓↓ (43.9) ↓↓ (75.0) ↓↓ (71.9) ↓↓ (75.8)
8 (W1,0,0,0) ↓↓↓↓ (17.0) ↓↓↓↓↓ (0.0) ↓↓ (74.2) ↓↓ (89.0)
  1. Antigen/unbound-Antibody (A), Antigen/bound-Antibody (AB), Enzyme/Inhibitor (E) and others (O): ↓ (less than 5% hits drop), ↓↓ (less than 30% hits drop), ↓↓↓ (noticeably drop less than 50% hits), ↓↓↓↓ (significantly drop less than 70% hits), ↓↓↓↓↓ (dramatically drop more than 95% hits), - (unchanged). Experiment #0 shows the results of number of hits obtained from the full set of weights (w 1 , w 2 , w 3 , w 4 ) for each complex type and is used as the reference (in bold). a% of hits as compared to the reference (i.e. results of the experiment #0) bOnly 4 combinations (#5 to #8) of weights are presented to highlight the significant contributions of w1 and w4